New York Times' Maggie Haberman: "Trump generally believes that everybody should have health care"

[still_one]

12. This is one of the reasons I no longer subscribe to the NYTimes. They have a pattern of

setting up false equivalencies whenever the need arises.

Here is just a small sampling of what I am referring to:

"How G.O.P. Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science
CORAL DAVENPORT and ERIC LIPTON"

This is mostly a standard fare story, how big money influenced republicans to paint climate change as a "hoax"

However, the Times just can't seem to resist invoking a false equivalency of the republican extremism by saying that it was "Democratic hubris in the Obama years", that helped push the republicans over the edge:

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."

Then they proceed to make excuses for the republicans by saying "most republicans do not believe climate change is a hoax"

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The Times does this frequently in their articles, believing I suspect, that it makes them appear "balanced". What it actually does, is distort the true picture of things.

The hiring of Bret Stephens is a perfect example of that philosophy:, "see how objective we are, we give equal voice to those who have different views, regardless that the Science on the subject has already spoken


In February they reported on a Democratic Member Quiting the Election Commission, and by invoking this so-called "balanced approach, left readers with the impression that both sides do it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html

It was a completely distorted picture of what was happening in that committee. The Democrats on that committee were willing to compromise, and work with their republican counterparts, but guess which side would not meet half-way?

The article gave such a distorted picture of what was really occurring, that the Democrat who resigned from that committee followed through with an editorial to present an actual picture of things:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/dysfunction-and-deadlock-at-the-federal-election-commission.html

With the Judy Miller's shoddy reporting of the WMDs graced the NYTimes, did many realize at the time that this pattern of shallow reporting would be an all too frequent occurrence at the "gray lady"